The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable."

Do you mean physically long or long as in reach?

Either way I handshoot the 600mm for wildlife, but I would say the 500 f/4 II is probably the longest in both areas that I would consider truly portable

I dont consider the 70-200 f/2.8 to be very large or heavy.

LOL! I knew writing that sentence would bring you into the fray.

I meant long in reach. According to TDP, the 100-400 is about 3.5 lb, and the 70-200 is about 3.75 lb with ring and hood. Above that focal length, the lenses get a bit heavier. The 500, 600 and 800 are 7, 8.5 and 10 lb. The 70-200 is also about 8 inches long, but the three telephoto primes are almost 2x as long or longer.

It's too bad that Canon does not offer smaller aperture options at the longest focal lengths like they do up to 400mm. The Canon 300 f/4 is about $1400 and weighs about 2.5 lb while the Canon 300 f/2.8 is about $7300 and weighs about 5 lb. What if they were to design smaller aperture lenses for 500 and 600mm? They would be a lot more appealing at half the weight and less than 1/3 the price (300mm comparison is unfair because the 300 f/4 is a much older design)! Imagine a 600mm lens at f/5.6 and 4.5 lb for $4000-5000!

According to TDP, the 100-400 is about 3.5 lb, and the 70-200 is about 3.75 lb with ring and hood. Above that focal length, the lenses get a bit heavier.

Since I don't use a strap, for me the torsion on the wrist is the most important thing - I guess someone could calculate it, and one result would be that the 70-300L is the most portable tele L since it's physically short, and even extended the bulk of the weight is near the camera body.

During my testing of the lens last year (pre 5d3) with my 7d, it's highly recommended. One of the rings, i think zoom, is backwards than the other telephoto zooms that I've tested so there's a minimal amount of getting used to it, but it's a fine lens. Weight wise it's not much lighter than the 70-200 2.8 II so be prepared, it is a hefty lens, but does offer a nice compromise in range and sealing.

That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end :-)

Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment :-)

For the record, I'm 70 years old, have two arthritic knees and one arthritic shoulder. I carry a 70-200 2.8L IS II on a 1D Mk IV around a motocross track most of the day without a problem. If it gets to feeling a little heavy around my neck, I hang it on my shoulder for a while.

briansquibb

That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end :-)

Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment :-)

Have you tried a Black Rapid hsrness - it makes carrying a lot easier than with the strap

For the record, I'm 70 years old, have two arthritic knees and one arthritic shoulder. I carry a 70-200 2.8L IS II on a 1D Mk IV around a motocross track most of the day without a problem. If it gets to feeling a little heavy around my neck, I hang it on my shoulder for a while.

briansquibb

There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.

Reasons why I wouldn't choose the 70-300L:- budget. Not enough to cover the extra charge over the Tamron 70-300 VC- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

So which zoom in your experience has the IQ, contrast and IS to match the 70-300L.

I have the 5D3 with the 70-300L and it's a great walk-around combination. I was surprised how I can walk around with it all day. I'm a 60-something woman and moved up from a mirrorless Pany G2.

Here's an image from the weekend using the 70-300L @229mm, f/5.6, 1/750, ISO 100. It's a crop with a bit of PP in ACR and Nik. Just a quick bit of PP to see what could be done. I think I was off a bit in ACR, so will go back and adjust.

Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question...

The Non-L is garbage IMO. Worst lens purchase I've ever made I've honestly used my 200mm f2.8 more than the 70-300 I have and I've only had it a few months.

IQ was a major letdown.

Couldn't agree more with the non L... I had one when i first started... soft is the only thing I can say about it... Was ok if I was in a pinch and needed the zoom but I couldn't count on any real keepers. worst lens purchase i've ever made... now the L version is quite nice indeed. It's a shame about the variable aperture, but very good IQ.

There are plenty of topics discussing the 70-300L, but they are from the pre-5DmkIII era. I've been thinking of getting a nice tele lens to complement my kit 24-105 f/4, and I cannot find a single reason not to choose the 70-300L. It will be a lens that is going to be used during in field action during walks, political meetings, etc, so hauling the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II around is going to be tiresome, and it is widely regarded that 70-300's IQ is similar to that of the 70-200 f/4 IS, while still having 100mm extra.

Since 5DmkIII is here and slower aperture problems might be overcome with higher ISO numbers, is there a reason not to choose the 70-300L? Thank you.

Reasons why I wouldn't choose the 70-300L:- budget. Not enough to cover the extra charge over the Tamron 70-300 VC- weight. The 70-300L is significantly heavier than the other 70-300 lenses, so if you're walking to the top of Half Dome and back in a day, you may want to carry a lighter long zoom lens with you.

So which zoom in your experience has the IQ, contrast and IS to match the 70-300L.

If weight is a problem then perhaps a P&S superzoom would suit?

True... although I would also throw the 70-200 F4 IS in the ring with the 70-300 L in terms of IQ, contrast, and IS and build quality... Plus it's considerably lighter and cheaper by a few hundred... but you do lose the 100mm on the long end so yeah...

photophreek

The 70-300L weighs in at 1050g, while the 70-200L II is 1490g and the 100-400L is 1380g. Regarding the zoom ring and the focus ring on the 70-300L, all L zooms have the zoom ring closest to the camera. The 70-300L, has the rings reversed with the focus ring closet to the camera like all Canon non L zooms. I'm very happy with the 70-300L and I'm looking forward to trying it on the 5d III.

The build quality is not comparable to e.g. Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS but it's very good nonetheless

- It is 285g lighter than the 70-300L - not exactly a significant weight advantage.- it is not weather sealed- IS is not to the same standard and the VC does not offer a tripod detection - The lens body is made of quite high quality plastics based on a metal mount.

Quote

Verdict - The most interesting question is, of course, how it compares to the genuine Canon lenses in this range. The Tamron manages to stay a little ahead of the consumer-grade Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS but it doesn't totally reach the professional-grade Canon L variant (especially in terms of bokeh quality). Even so it represents an excellent value offer in the APS-C market.

So it is a good budget lens which edges ahead of the 70-300 non L

Is it worth the premium for the 70-300L? - well that is a personal opinion

I had the 70-300 non-L and upgraded to the 70-300L when I had my 7D and the upgrade was definitely worth it. The L is much sharper and has much better contrast and saturation than the non-L. The image stabilization is also significantly better - you can see it at work as soon as you press the shutter half-way - it's impressive. The build quality difference is night and day better.

However, now that I've moved to full frame, I find myself wanting to try the 70-200 II so I think I'm going to rent it one weekend and do a shoot off.

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135). And it's ideal for portraits. The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

On the other hand, the 70-300L would be much better on a Safari or other wild-life shoot.

I owned both the 70-200m.ii and the 70-300L and now the 100-400L... I still regret selling the 70-300L... it is visibly superior to the nonL version. The only reason I sold it is that it does not work with the 2x Canon tele's...